Men need male support anecdotally, daily to shape our transformation....not just new programs
The Globe and Mail is running a series about the need to
design and deliver ‘programs’ to and for men, to cope with the violent
behaviour of men primarily in relationships with women.
Two things stood out from that reading:
1) The preponderance of public funds that are being poured into addressing domestic violence is supporting both facilities and programs for women victims. The
argument from those quarters is that any new funding for facilities and programs
for men will drain off the funds they are already receiving.
2) 2) The
current situation, in this as in most public policy decisions, is tilted firmly
in the direction of “crisis management” and not prevention.
Of course, both of these points
are directly related, in that “prevention” of violence perpetrated by men
against women requires not only to address the needs of those victims, but also
to seek to prevent further abuse,
So, what is it about “crisis” management that is far more
appealing and even seductive to decision-makers in the political arena, as well
as in the policy arena, than prevention?
How do we measure the impact of any dollars spent on “preventing”
men from imposing violent acts and emotions on women? How many men “have not”
committed domestic violence as a result of this program? Who knows?
On the other hand, a woman in distress, as a victim of
violence, absolutely needs support, counsel and a continuing circle of advocacy
to attempt to re-build her life, whether or not she brings young children into
the shelter. And those ‘outcomes’ are and will continue to be measured, in
terms of number of women served, number of women who re-built their lives and numbers
of children who successfully survived the family trauma. Politically, then, the
sheer force of e empirical reality in terms of measurable results favours the “crisis
management”.
The cliché’s that come from the men who have perpetrated family
violence, and then sought help, abound, and are highly predictable:
We’re told from a very young age, that we must not show our emotions.
We’re told to ‘suck it up’ if and when we are injured or
bullied.
We’re told to ‘answer back’ in order to stop the bullying.
We’ re told that “emotions are for girls” and not for boys,
We’re told that emotions will get in the way of a
successful career.
And then, when we are in relationship with a woman, we bring
all of that baggage into the home and we are completely without preparation for
what kind of communications are necessary in order to grow and to sustain the
relationship. Not only that, our women partners have been engaging in the
expression of their emotions from their early years. So not only are they more
in touch with their emotions, they also are much more comfortable in naming,
acknowledging and expressing them. So, then, we are in a double bind and we are
scared silly (read shitless!)
This stereotypical and reductionistic concept of masculinity
is playing out on the battlefield in Ukraine, as well as in other ‘hot spots’
around the globe. Men who absolutely believe they need power over others, in
order to satisfy their fundamental needs as men, are perverting both masculinity
and their people, including, in Ukraine, the slaughter of thousands, and the
displacement of millions.
And while the war cannot be attributed exclusively to the perversion
of healthy masculinity, that is certainly one of the root impulses, whether it
will ever be uttered in any peace negotiation room.
So, how does an enlightened culture, a wealthy and relatively
educated culture address the question of educating boys and young men in the
attributes and the benefits of androgyny, of honouring their true feelings, and
of discerning the difference between ‘self-pity’ and authentic injury or emotional
wounding. Our mothers were quite good at ‘fixing’ our “owie’s” when we fell off
our bikes and skinned our knees, when we were seven. And yet our hockey coach
was not so considerate if we were pummeled to the ice by an opponent as we
attempted to pass or to score. Our fathers, too, in many cases, were determined
to have a “successful” trophy as a son (not unlike many who ‘had’ a trophy
wife), whose career, in many cases would never devolve into something as
frivolous as music, dance, or the arts. Those sons were indoctrinated in the gospel
of heroes like doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, dentists and surveyors
or business tycoons. Masculinity, too,
never was to include being gay, because, in other days, that too was abominable,
especially for fathers. Indeed, boys who were proficient in the arts were often
considered effeminate again by their embarrassed fathers, while they mothers
were more likely secretly proud of their sensitivity and their accomplishments.
So…..what to do in a world in which several generations of
men and women have grown and bee/.\n nurtured in such poppy-cock while emerging
generations will have no ‘truck’ with that crap?
I cannot speak or write about other ecclesial organizations; however, I have some deep and painful experiences in the Anglican/Episcopal church in both Canada and the U.S. And the culmination of a collision of masculinities occurred one spring day in 2000, when I uttered these words, to a bishop in the U.S. and his sycophant, in his office. His response continues to ring loudly in my ears and in my body.
“It is time for men to learn what their emotions are, to own them and to become comfortable with and in them!” were the words I uttered, almost defiantly, and certainly impolitically and perhaps even impertinently.
He lept from his desk chair and screamed, “That’s far too
dangerous! That is not allowed!” At which point his sycophant muttered, “And
there are far too many emotions in this room now; I have to leave!”
Emotions then become a sign of something ‘evil’ when in
reality they are an integral and inescapable aspect of human nature.
And, that is not to say that emotions cannot become a
serious issue in the dynamic of human interactions. Former U.S. Secretary of
Defense, Robert Gates, on CNN, in a program to air tomorrow night, “On the Mind
of Vladimir Putin”…when asked about his impression of the Russian leader whom
he has met several times, “He has a fervour!” A modest interpretation of that
phrase would be “he is intensely emotional almost demonic in his pursuit of his
agenda”. Contrast that with the George W. Bush exclamation shortly after the
9/11 attack, “I don’t do nuance!” as if, from his Texan perspective, anything
modest, moderate or subtle is, by his own definition of his perspective, out of
bounds. What is the emotional “content” of the Bush epithet? Another free transliteration
might read, “In this moment, anything less than a full-out war will not be even
contemplated by me!”
While men do not “do” emotions, too often their emotions “do”
them, without their being conscious of that dynamic, and certainly without
their having to take responsibility for their emotions.
And while we are agree that men do not, generally, manage,
or even have a deep awareness of how they are experiencing, their feelings at
any moment, and will withdraw in “embarrassment” and a feeling of inadequacy if
they/we are asked to tell someone ‘how they are feeling’…..we all know that
many social and political situations, if not all, are rooted in the feelings of
the participants. Sometimes those feelings are honourable, trustworthy, legitimate
and sometimes they are not.
It is also the discernment of which situation is active and relevant
at a given moment that also seems to escape the purview of many men. However,
if ignorance and insensibility have pervaded the male relationship with his/our
emotions, irrespective of the cultural, historic, psychological or even ethical
justification for that detachment, for centuries, that situation is, inevitably
and predictably, changing, perhaps, in the view of many observers, at a pace
analogous to the pace at which grass grows. Aroused emotion of anger,
frustration, disempowerment and embarrassment, especially for men, is a red
flag. And it ought not be only our female partners and co-workers’ job to
caution us against a flare-up that could sabotage not only ourselves, but a far
larger situation as well.
Nevertheless, programmed into the cultural development of
many North American women is the concept of, first, managing through
identification and sharing of their own emotions, and second, helping their
male colleagues and partners to “hold them under wraps” if and when there is a
real danger of eruption. And it is eruption of emotions, mostly by men, that
frequently lies at the heart of so many domestic disputes and abuse. There is
also a high co-relation between those men who drive themselves very hard, and who
have an extremely high set of expectations and standards for themselves and their
families, especially their sons, and the eruption of negative, highly critical
emotional outbursts if and when the child appears in any way inadequate. It is
almost as if the reputation of the ‘father’ is transferred to the performance of
the son, and, disappointing the father, resulting in deep and unforgettable emotional
wounding of the son.
Clearly, it is not only our sons or our life partners who
suffer the imposition of unleashed and clearly not understood or even tolerated
and acknowledged emotions from the men in their lives. Workplaces, too, and
organizations and corporations, experience considerable impact of conflict that,
in many cases, can be traced back to some male “power-figure” being upset at
the exposure of negative information, especially of the kind that demonstrates
what he believes to indicate the ‘nature of the character of the offender’ in
his mind.
And there is another more subtle and almost imperceptible implication
of “power” over that pervades small and large organizations, especially among
those who have been there, and perhaps previously held leadership positions.
And this is especially evident among men, who themselves, have almost
imperceptibly been supported and even cheer-led by the women in the organization,
(in order to keep the peace) and have a blind eye and a deaf ear to their own
abuse of power over, for example, new comers to the organization, the church, or
the town. Leadership positions, while requiring and expecting ‘performance’
from those in office, also carry the burden of living examples of how human
interactions occur within the group.
For example, just because a male group member is hosting a
guest speaker from another organization does not give him the right to usurp
the female executive of the hosting organization from the head table, in order
to take that place himself and then justify such a move on the basis of having to
introduce his guest to the group. I have personally watched that little scene
play out and everyone, including the displaced executive member, remained
silent thereby permitting the ensuing impunity to shield the offending male.
It is not because Canadians are especially polite and
deferential that such situations play out frequently. It is also because women
have deferred for centuries to the bad behaviour of men, without the men
uttering a word either of self-criticism or of transformation of their
expectations of themselves or their female colleagues. And, for their part, the
women “know” that keeping the peace is preferable to raising an issue of ‘offense’,
because they know that if they were to take every situation of disrespect
seriously, they could be in conflict at least weekly.
Male assumption of power over others is not and cannot be
justified by superior competence, nor superior muscle strength, and certainly
not by a higher emotional intelligence. Indeed, the evidence of a higher
emotional intelligence among women far outstrips that of most men. And that, in
itself, is another nail in the coffin of male ego’s, already enduring a verbal
lashing from the predominance of domestic violence cases by men against women.
And while training programs, and counselling and coaching and
codes of conduct in organizations, including signs in retail outlets (I
shockingly read on the door of a retail outlet this week “We will not tolerate
abusive behaviour, anger or threats in our store”), will spread red flags ubiquitously,
they will not transform the deep-seated fear and insecurity in many males. They/we
too often believe that these changes toward equality, equity, respect and
dignity for all is just another attempt to denigrate the way things were, when,
many men believed they were just fine before.
Men, ourselves, in quite moments, among friends and family,
having noted and embraced changes in attitude and deportment, have the
obligation of leading our fellow males in a direction that can only bode well
for our partners, our children and our grandchildren.
It is not only the environment’s suffocation from toxic
gases that we have to address. Toxic words and attitudes from men are also polluting
our shared environments.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home